tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post761840608073203788..comments2023-12-25T09:58:54.563-06:00Comments on The Christian Freethinker: Dialogue Concerning the Claims of AnglicanismMark Hausamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-31215284688302861852016-12-29T16:27:41.595-06:002016-12-29T16:27:41.595-06:00Thank you Mark, I do appreciate your replies.
I d...Thank you Mark, I do appreciate your replies. <br />I do believe, however, we've reached the end point of our discussion, as we are comparing apples to round pears. Both look similar, but I just can't find the Scirptural authority to backup "divine Tradition" as you put it. I don't believe anyone but Christ is without sin, so holding them up to the same heights as the Holy Bible is at best overkill, and at worst idolatry. When God says "have no other gods before me", I believe that means "put nothing on the same level as me", pastors, priests, Mary included. I know that my pastors sin and their hearts are prone to sin, that's why I believe we are encouraged to test what we are hearing with what is written in Scripture. Yes Jesus entrusted his apostles with His message, but his apostles made mistakes... Judas betrayed him, Thomas doubted him, Peter denied him and Jesus called him "Satan". My point is, if the great apostle Paul sinned, if any of the apostles sinned, I can't believe that priests and popes are without sin. The Bible doesn't mention future people who are without sin that will guide us through the Scriptures, but the veil of the temple was torn to signify that Jesus is available freely for us all. I believe it would be irresponsible to lean on the traditions and interpretations of other sinners, for when we are called to give account of lives on Jusgement Day, I don't think calling our priest or pope will be an option. Jesus asked his disciples "who donyou say that I am", he didn't ask who do you believe my mother is. <br />Thank you for your time, and I hope we both continue our journey towards finding the truth of God and the saving grace of Jesus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-5943642327739242672016-12-29T09:09:42.622-06:002016-12-29T09:09:42.622-06:00"not fearfully approach the confessional so t...<br /><br />"not fearfully approach the confessional so that the priest may somewhat boldly approach Mary, who may boldly appeal to Jesus, who may boldly approach the throne of grace."<br /><br />Catholics also believe in "boldly approaching the throne of grace." Priests and sacraments are not obstacles between us and Christ, but are means by which Christ interacts with us in visible ways in this world. When I go to church and hear a pastor give a sermon, the pastor is not blocking me from Christ. Rather, he is an ambassador from Christ to teach the Word of Christ to me. When a church engages in church discipline with regard to a member, the church is not standing in the way of that person's relationship with Christ, but is functioning as a conduit for that relationship. Jesus appointed apostles to represent him on the earth, and he gave them authority to teach and represent Jesus on earth (Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 10:16; etc.), and they passed on this authority to bishops/elders who would succeed them (Hebrews 13:17; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5; etc.)<br /><br />So, for example, if I commit a serious sin, what do I do? I repent of my sin, turn to God and ask forgiveness because of Christ, and God forgives me. Then I go to Confession, where God's ambassador on earth, the priest, waits to formally pronounce forgiveness upon me in the name of Christ when I confess my sin to him. The priest simply pronounces what Christ has granted.<br /><br />You mention Mary also. Catholics ask Mary and other saints in heaven to pray for us, not because they are obstacles between us and Christ, but because God has called us to salvation not in isolation from others but as a unified body, and he often helps one part of the body in response to the prayers and actions of other parts. That is why we pray for each other. Catholics believe that we should also ask for the prayers of Christians who are now in heaven and those who have a particularly close relationship to Christ (like his mother). "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," as James says (James 5:16).<br /><br />"at no point was it suggested that that knowledge remain with the church leaders."<br /><br />Of course not. That is not the Catholic view. The Church has received the revelation of God so that she can transmit it to the world.<br /><br />"The Bible is now freely available for all to read."<br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />MarkMark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-56676578603578476502016-12-29T09:09:23.279-06:002016-12-29T09:09:23.279-06:00"Can I ask how "Tradition AND Scripture&..."Can I ask how "Tradition AND Scripture" model works?"<br /><br />Basically, it works like this: The revelation of God was entrusted to the Church. The Church has handed it down in Scripture, and it has also handed down through its preaching, liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, etc., and this is called "Tradition." God has also given to the Church the authority and ability to correctly interpret and apply the revelation of God through history. The Church did this, for example, at the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts when it determined that the revelation of Jesus implies that Gentiles will not need to be circumcised. This point had not been explicitly decided by Jesus, but the Church, when faced with the question, was guided by the Holy Spirit to answer the question in the correct way in its application of the revelation entrusted to it. Another example is the Council of Nicaea, where the Church created a formulation regarding how the Son is consubstantial with the Father, applying the revelation to that question more specifically. The formulation of the Immaculate Conception is another example.<br /><br />"Firstly, I don't find any biblical authority to suggest man-made tradition is on par with God's Word."<br /><br />Certainly, man-made tradition is NOT on par with God's Word. But divine Tradition IS God's Word.<br /><br />"the New Testament churches were void of any tradition"<br /><br />In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the Apostle Paul says this: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." "Tradition" just means "that which is handed down." In the New Testament, we see the truth of God handed down in writing and in other ways, as Paul's comment illustrates.<br /><br />Here is a nice article that discusses this further:<br /><br />http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition<br /><br />To be continued . . .Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-33107176008241757142016-12-28T16:46:21.742-06:002016-12-28T16:46:21.742-06:00Thanks Mark, that's quite informative.
Can I a...Thanks Mark, that's quite informative.<br />Can I ask how "Tradition AND Scripture" model works? <br />Firstly, I don't find any biblical authority to suggest man-made tradition is on par with God's Word. In fact, the New Testament churches were void of any tradition, because following Christ looked very different on a practical level to following the God of the Old Testament. I see this as amazingly freeing! Freedom to "boldly approach the throne of grace" (Hebrews 4:16), not fearfully approach the confessional so that the priest may somewhat boldly approach Mary, who may boldly appeal to Jesus, who may boldly approach the throne of grace. Was that not the significance of the veil of the temple being torn in two at Jesus death?<br /><br />Secondly, the letters in the New Testament were written openly to the churches, at no point was it suggested that that knowledge remain with the church leaders. If the letters were read out to the congregation by the leaders, it was surely because there was only one copy of the letter and not a power trip. The Bible is now freely available for all to read.<br />Looking forward to your insightAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-44060821715053005472016-12-27T21:11:37.388-06:002016-12-27T21:11:37.388-06:00Hi Anonymous! Thanks for your questions!
"I...Hi Anonymous! Thanks for your questions!<br /><br />"If the catholic faith is built on the Bible as its foundation, shouldn't all catholic tradition and beliefs have Biblical roots?"<br /><br />The Catholic faith teaches that the revelation of God is handed down in both Scripture and Tradition. These mostly overlap, but there are a few things that are passed down in Tradition that aren't mentioned in Scripture.<br /><br />However, all Catholic teaching, whether directly or indirectly, has roots in Scripture. The Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture, but the Catholic Church sees it reflected and implied in certain biblical themes, such as Mary being "full of grace." Here is a nice, short article articulating some of these themes:<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/mary-without-sin-scripture-and-tradition/<br /><br />In the Catholic faith, only the Church has the authority and ability from God to authoritatively and infallibly interpret Scripture, and it is the job of the Church to do this. The private Christian is to defer to the interpretations of the Church rather than to put his own private interpretation above that of the Church. The Church has the job of handing on, preserving, interpreting, unpacking, and applying the revelation of God through the ages. (A good example of this in the New Testament is the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where the Church authoritatively determines whether Gentiles have to be circumcised.) So if the Church finds that an implication of the biblical revelation is that Mary is preserved free from sin by the grace of God through Christ, then we have reason to accept that conclusion as true.<br /><br />"For, if she was in fact sinless, then there would be no need for Jesus to come and die, as Mary could have died in His stead."<br /><br />All humans since the Fall of Adam have been condemned to be sinners, and can only be saved from this by the sacrifice of Christ and the grace of God. This includes Mary. The difference with Mary is that she was saved from falling into sin rather than saved out of it after being allowed to fall in it. But her salvation is just as much owing to the sacrifice and merits of Christ and the grace of God as anyone else's. Christ, on the other hand, is sinless because he is the Son of God and not by the merits or power of another Savior.<br /><br />Remember that in the Catholic view, the authoritative interpretation of Scripture comes from the Church. The Church has concluded that "all have sinned" does not imply that Mary fell into sin. The phrase indicates the general condemnation of humanity under sin since the Fall, but it is not intended to imply that everyone has been under sin in the same way. Mary has been saved from sin in an extra-ordinary way. Protestants understand that "Scripture interprets Scripture." There are many things said in various parts of Scripture that might be taken as implying one thing if that text was all we had, yet other parts of Scripture clarify the meaning further. In the Catholic view, the Tradition and teaching of the Church has a similar function.<br /><br />Here is another article which, I think, explains well how Mary has been saved from sin and how this fits in with the claims of Scripture:<br /><br />http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption<br /><br />Of course, all this may raise other questions. Please feel free to follow up with any of this. I would be happy to talk further. Thank you for your thoughtful and civil post!<br /><br />MarkMark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-36689238609855000962016-12-27T15:56:00.530-06:002016-12-27T15:56:00.530-06:00Hi Mark, I did some reading on the Immaculate Conc...Hi Mark, I did some reading on the Immaculate Conception theory through a link you provided, but the only citations of it were non-Biblical. If the catholic faith is built on the Bible as its foundation, shouldn't all catholic tradition and beliefs have Biblical roots? The Bible tells me "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", i'm interested to hear how the catholic church reconciles that Mary was sinless, from a Biblical standpoint. For, if she was in fact sinless, then there would be no need for Jesus to come and die, as Mary could have died in His stead. <br />I don't believe the Bible records any of Mary's sins, but neither does it state that she was sinless. Further to the point, the Bible isn't about Mary, so its historical account of her life, or lack thereof, shouldn't surprise us. If we make assumptions based on what isn't said about Mary, we leave the door wide open. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com